Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Well, that was quite a meeting. A shout out to the Town of Parry Sound Clerk for summarizing the comments presented at the Public Meeting session. There was much more covered at the meeting, I offer a few comments below.

2.1 – Backyard Hens.
My father had a restaurant in the city and I grew up on a ‘hobby farm’ in the country outside Ottawa. We had cattle, sheep, pigs and, at one point, chickens. The chicken experiment ended when my mother’s dogs repeatedly killed them. Either the chickens or the dogs had to go. The chickens were my father’s idea, the dogs were my mother’s. The dogs also did a number on one of the sheep, another of my father’s ideas. They had to go. Enough said. I hope that Council doesn’t ‘chicken out’ in making a decision like they did with fluoridation and put it to a public vote. (Check out the input from the community below. Even CP Rail had input.)

2.2 7 – McMurray and Gibson Street.
Well, if you can’t expand your borders you need to expand up, that means more high-rises. Let’s remember that we are not the City of Ottawa which for years had rules that no building could be taller than the Peace Tower. A nice sentiment but it came with costs. (Again, check out the comments below.)

3.2.5 – Dogs at Beaches.
This is a public health issue. It’s not about disadvantaging a pet. There are reasons that infants are required to be diapered and ‘sealed’ to use public pools. Speaking of pools ….

9.2.2 – Ad hoc Waterfront Advisory Committee Terms of Reference. Resolution withdrawn.
When the going gets tough, hire a consultant. That puts off any type of decision for a couple more years, and provides plausible deniability of sorts. I’m sure there will be then be public complaints and it will need to be ‘reviewed (see below for context).

9.5.2. – Requesting new Accommodation Review Committee for Proposed School.
Yup, do the work and the due diligence and expect people to complain and demand a review. (In the U.S. the preferred review of some is a ‘recount’.) Note to Council, you can’t keep all the people happy, all the time. You would not be happy if a school board demanded you to go back and review one of your multi-million dollar projects because some folks didn’t like the personal implications.

10.5.1 – Return Management of Belvedere Long-Term Beds to MLTC for Campus of Care.
I would like to better understand the implications of this. Is this a way to shift costs away from the municipalities? There will be so much pain once payment of the many provincial and federal COVID-19 subsidies come due.

Abridged Meeting Minutes

Closed Session
c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land for municipal or local board purposes, (proposed property exchange), (potential property purchase);
k) a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board, (proposed property exchange)
Carried

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof
1.4.1 – Councillor Horne declared pecuniary interest
on item 10.5.1 – Return Management of 101 Long-Term Care Beds to the Ministry of Long Term Care to be relocated into a campus of care at the West Parry Sound Health Centre, as his spouse is the Chief Operating Officer at the West Parry Sound Health Centre and is involved in the process. Councillor Horne left the meeting for the item, did not participate in discussion, nor vote on the matter.

Public Meeting

2.1 – Backyard Hens.
Manager of Building & Planning Services Taylor Elgie advised that the proposed Zoning By-Law amendment would permit backyard hens on residential lots that meet the minimum standards.
The following members of the public responded to the Mayor’s invitation to speak in favour of the proposed Zoning By-law amendment:
a) Ben Prichard said that he is in support of backyard hens in Parry Sound and is excited about the prospect of teaching his kids about where food comes from, about sustainability, about the way the world works. Mr. Prichard said he thought it would increase property values and that there were many people who might flee the downtown area for rural areas, but for this compromise that allows people to stay in Town.
b) Trina Papalia noted that she currently has backyard hens in Town and didn’t know they were prohibited until she was served a notice from the By-law Enforcement Officer, with whom she has had a great conversation about backyard hens and the zoning by- law amendment process. Ms. Papalia noted that one of the points in the proposed zoning by-law amendment is that hens can only be located in a rear yard and that she asked that Council permit alternate locations for irregular shaped lots. Ms. Papalia noted that hens are a lot of work and that she thought having an educational piece to be included with a permit would be helpful.
c) Alex Walsh said that she echoed what Ben Prichard said, and that as the younger generation was returning to Parry Sound, they’ve lived in locations where they can have urban hens, and it is a consideration when thinking about choosing downtown vs. rural living. There is low risk if the coups are maintained properly and people are educated about how to maintain chickens.

No one responded to the Mayor’s invitation to speak in opposition to the proposed Zoning By-law amendment:

Mr. Elgie advised that he had received the following correspondence in opposition to the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment:
a) Deborah and John Adams, on Wood Street requested that the existing by-law be enforced, and chickens prohibited. They noted there has been no opportunity for taxpayers to be properly notified that this issue is even being considered; a proper public meeting is not possible, and it is not prudent to consider town wide amendments. 6-8 months would be necessary to even bring an amendment forward. They made the following additional points: Town lots are too small; science has proven that eggs from back yard hens are no more nutritious than store purchased eggs, nor will money be saved; kids can be taught about where food comes from by visiting a farm, and there are safer alternatives for pets than hens; can lead to salmonella and E.coli; chickens are prone to diseases; costs to provide care are high; they are noisy, attract rodents and have noxious smells; they create dust that can cause respiratory problems; they reduce property values. The Adams requested that the by-law to be enforced as written today and that when the rezoning by-law is considered, a recorded vote be taken.
b) Jean Pennington wrote that hens attract rodents, raccoons and have a detrimental effect on the quality of life if every back yard suddenly decides to have chickens.
c) Sharon and Bryce Duncan wrote that farm animals should not be allowed in a residential neighbourhood as when cities expanded into rural areas it was discovered that livestock and homes were incompatible. Backyard hens lead to noxious smells, serious health issues and attraction of rodents, coyotes and foxes. The Duncans asked what is to happen with chicken excrement and dead chickens and how will the regulations be enforced. They wrote further that they did not feel the minimum lots sizes are big enough, that chickens should be registered and that property values will be reduced.
d) Mr. Hilts on Wood Street wrote that he is not in support and wishes to keep Parry Sound clean and healthy. Attached was an article reporting on 163 people who contracted salmonella across 43 states.
e) Colleen McLean on Waubeek Street wrote that she chose to live in town and not in the rural are for this type of reason. She further wrote about health risks, noise levels and predator concerns, and that permitting chickens would impact her decision to stay in Town.
f) Shirley Ramsay wrote that she is opposed.
g) Nancy Beers on River Street wrote that she feels the proposed lot size is too small and other municipalities have required larger lots, and setbacks need to be established. She wrote with concerns about smell and health issues and that this will attract predators such as coyotes.
h) Julie Chiaramonte of Waubeek Street wrote that she is opposed.
i) Kathleen & Mike Morrison on Margaret Street wrote that they are opposed and that hens belong on farms.

Mr. Elgie advised that he has received the following correspondence in favour of the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment:
a) Trina Papalia of Kristen Heights wrote that this is a current trend that has gained popularity with covid; backyard hens are not economical, but are often kept for affective reasons; requests that they be permitted in sideyards for odd shaped lots; requests guidance on how to dispose of waste; questions if people cannot own hens if they live in a semi or townhouse unit; feels it could be licensed similarly to dogs, and funds from permits could offset complaint costs.
b) Wendy Kelly and Christopher Metcalfe of Wood Street wrote that the right to food is a basic human right. They noted that smell, noise and predators are mainly misconceptions. Cleaning is easy as the enclosure size is small, and as long as the enclosure is properly made, there are no predators. Hens are quiet – quieter than dogs. Provides a food source and is a kinder enclosure than commercial operations.
c) Judy & Terry Ideson of River Street wrote in favour.
d) Caroline Quanbury of McDougall wrote that this is an easy way to access a healthy food source. Chickens are no louder than dogs, nor do they create more waste. Only permitting in rear yards doesn’t allow the opportunity for coups on odd shaped lots.
e) John Este of Riverdale Road supports the concept but is concerned about implementation as this by-law has the potential to blur the lines on land use compatibility. Mr. Este asked whether enforcement rules will be practical and what happens to rule breakers. He suggests a permit system and make it a fineable process.
f) CP Rail requested that if hens are permitted, they be kept in enclosures.

2.2 – 7 McMurray and Gibson Street.
Mr. Elgie advised that the proposed Zoning By-Law amendment would change from R2 to R3 to permit a 5 storey-17 metres tall mixed-use building with seventeen residential units and main floor mixed commercial/residential use.
Matt Ryan of FAD Architects, acting on behalf of Eco Development who made the rezoning application, responded to the Mayor’s invitation to speak in favour of the proposed Zoning By-law amendment, expressing appreciation towards everyone who submitted comments, as there were many valid points brought forward. Mr. Ryan noted that this project addresses a number of challenges that currently face including the following:
1) One of the best ways to fight the effects of climate change is to reduce our dependence on the car. We do this by building higher density housing and making walkable and bicycle focused communities.
2) We want a vibrant active downtown core, currently we have many commercial vacancies which can be attributed to Covid. But we also need more people living and working downtown which will increase demand for goods and services. We have all been to vibrant cities and towns and one of the things that makes them vibrant is people. To clarify, the commercial space proposed for this project is to be owner occupied as an Art Gallery and Cafe and is focused on McMurray St.
3) This area contains some beautiful heritage homes, but it also has the Salvation Army Church building directly to the north of the subject property as well as the Ford dealership kitty corner to it and the Hub to the north; so this is really an area in transition.
4) This project represents a significant investment in the community. The developer is building a factory north of Town to manufacture CLT panels which will bring long term economic growth and jobs to the area. CLT stands for Cross Laminated Timber panels; a highly sustainable method of construction that actually has the ability to store carbon. It is considered a replacement for concrete which is a high emitter of carbon and considered one of the bad boys of climate change. This building will be built using CLT panels.
5) This project offers more sustainable planning practises, more sustainable construction methods, long term sustainable economic growth and by bringing more people downtown, a more sustainable, more vibrant downtown core.
Mr. Ryan noted that there are challenges – parking being one of them, but argued that in the past, planning was guided more by the automobile than quality of life. As issues of parking and car dependence won’t be resolved overnight, Mr. Ryan proposed a compromise with a reduction in the building height to 4 stories, which would reduce the number of residential units to 13 and would require 16 parking spaces with an actual 19 spaces being provided on site.
Referring to points that Mr. Este made in his letter, Mr. Ryan recommended the Town increase the cash-in-lieu of parking amount on future projects to encourage developers to find actual solutions to parking needs or require them to propose alternatives. Mr. Ryan noted that as a building owner in the downtown core that has no parking on-site he has had to make arrangement to rent 2 spaces from the neighbouring property.
Joel Kennedy responded to the Mayor’s invitation to speak in opposition to the proposed Zoning By-law amendment, noting that he had provided a written letter on behalf of several residents of Gibson Street. In addition to his letter, which Mr. Kennedy indicated should stand for itself, he referred to the congested traffic and parking today at Market Square Park during the Tuesday market.
Mr. Elgie advised that he had received the following correspondence:
a) Piotr Piotrowski of Gibson Street wrote that Gibson Street is a unique area with architectural character and the proposal will affect the heritage nature of the existing development. This street was chosen by the film industry due to its heritage nature. Increased traffic from the development will bring traffic hazards.
b) Nancy Cunningham of Salt Dock Road wrote that this property is in the core of Town and Market Square and McMurray Street was anchored by the courthouse on one end and the Governor Beatty residence at the other. This street is not an arterial/collector street and is supposed to be a quiet residential street. Properties have invested in the immediate area to renovate per the existing character – the Town’s planning documents need to be relied upon when owners invest this much. The building would be too tall and over the tree line, dominating the area. The BIA has many vacancies, why would commercial extend out of the downtown? Parking requirements will be extensive and there is no room to park on street. Pointed out examples where long term consequences can be felt, 1 – the waterfront trail when save our shoreline was created, 2 – commercial development at the north and south sucking the life out of the downtown, 3 – oil drums on the shoreline and the necessary clean up required.
c) Joel Kennedy plus 22 others from Gibson Street wrote that the proposed rezoning asks for fundamental changes contrary to the Official Plan, and that the proper zoning considerations should be applied. Property is surrounded by heritage homes and OP requires regard for character. Concerns with aesthetics and requests a heritage analysis. Height is a great concern. The proposal is for commercial in an area where it is not permitted and is not necessary.
d) Leslie Kovacs wrote that this location is inappropriate for this type of building. Development must be done in close consultation with existing residences and there are more appropriate locations.
e) Tom Gibson wrote that this would not enhance the immediate area.
f) Stephen Heder of Church Street wrote that the proposal is too tall and has too few parking spaces. He requests consideration for less than five storeys, more parking and less congestion.
g) Jim and Marian Ferris, Mac and Debbie Kirk, and Penny Ferris of William Street agree with opposition on the same grounds as Mr. Kennedy. Parking is a concern as there is limited street parking. They do not like the design of the building and think it doesn’t fit in; it is too high. They are worried about snow clearing and ask whether the infrastructure can handle a 5-storey building. They recommend it be built to 3 storeys with a roof garden to provide recreational and garden space for tenants and drop the commercial component due to the variety of available sites in town.
h) John Este of Riverdale Road wrote that he would support the rezoning if parking requirements could be met. Not providing the necessary parking leads to infractions on nearby landowners. If this development does not provide the necessary parking, and more demand is then put on Town streets, would parking meters be returning to offset the impact on public lands?
i) Hugh Logan of James Street wrote that new rental units are a good thing, but this location is not well suited for such a large project. Increased congestion, noise, shadow effects could all be impacts. There should be no concessions on building setbacks or parking requirements.
j) Declan O’Carroll of Scarborough, McKellar and Parry Sound wrote that Gibson Street has always been a walking destination to look at century Victorian homes. Parking is already a problem.
k) John O’Carroll and David Bouchard of Gibson Street wrote that the lands are zoned for a triplex, not commercial and 16 residential units and five stories. The building does not suit the neighbourhood as it’s a heritage area.
l) Brian O’Carroll of Gibson Street wrote that the proposal will not blend in with the area. Development of this site should be done in a tasteful manner and the appearance seems industrial.
m) Aleesha Mullen of Mary Street wrote in favour of the proposal noting that if the Town wants a sustainable, successful and economically viable downtown, more people need to live downtown. She frequently hears that people want more shops, restaurants, cafes and less vacant store fronts, so more people need to live downtown. The proposal is a step in the right direction. Higher density housing creates more affordable housing options, increases tax base and has positive environmental implications.
CP Rail provided general comments.

2.3 – 70 Joseph Street.
Mr. Elgie advised that the proposed Zoning By-Law amendment would change the Official Plan designation from District Commercial to the Joseph Street mixed use designation and change the zoning of the property to a Mixed-Use Special Provision, with an intent to permit a variety of commercial and stand-alone residential uses.
Brandi Clement, Project Planner, and partner with Jones Consulting, responded to the Mayor’s invitation to speak in favour of the proposed Zoning By-law amendment and provided a presentation with the following information:
– Redevelopment proposed for 70 Joseph Street, known as Parry Sound Mall, which has 71 metres frontage on Joseph St. and 250 Metres frontage on Mall Drive, with a total lot area of 6.88 hectares (ha) (17 acres).
– In June 2020, and June 2021, land received approval for a severance creating 2 lots, one being 1.47 ha (3.6 acres), and the other 5.3 ha (13 acres) to house the remaining portion of the mall.
– A 70-residential unit rental development is proposed on the smaller severed portion, with ground floor commercial accessed from the parking lot facing Joseph Street. The development is of varying heights from one to three storeys, separated by a courtyard from the existing mall, and includes an interior courtyard. The highest point is 11.23 metres high (37 ft); stucco exterior coloured blue with white accents. Units include bachelor, 1-bedroom, 1-bedroom + den, and 2-bedroom, with smallest being 343 sq. m. and largest 1,031 sq m. Total gross area of this building is 5,600 sq m, (61,000 sq ft); parking provided on west side of property for residential units with existing parking on east side available for the mall with a cross easement proposed that all uses on site can use all parking spaces. Density is 48 units/ha.
– Remnant of mall structure will contain all commercial uses, and include the existing school, the fitness centre, and smaller commercial uses and indoor self storage lockers at a total area or 8,100 sq m. or 87,000 sq ft.
– A restaurant drive-through is proposed for the NE corner, at the intersection of Joseph and Mall Dr. with a building size of 186 sq m. (2000 sq ft).
– Set-backs are: minimum rear set back of 6 metres and front yard set back 1.19 m. A reduction in the size of parking spaces is requested from 3 m x 6 m to 2.75 m x 6 m, as well as a reduction in the total number of parking spaces required from 562 to 503 spaces.
– Technical documents submitted include a Planning Justification Report, Traffic Impact Study, Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Design Brief, and Noise Feasibility Study.
No members of the public responded to the Mayor’s invitation to speak in opposition to the proposed Zoning By-law amendment and Mr. Elgie advised that he had received no correspondence to date on the matter.
The Mayor advised that Council, at its discretion may approve the proposed Zoning By- law amendments and if so, must either circulate notice of passing of the by-laws or give notice in the local press. Objections to the passing of the by-laws will be received by the Clerk within 20 days from the date such notice is given, which objections will be forwarded to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. If an appeal is submitted and the appellant has not provided Council with an oral or written submission before the passing of the by-law, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal may choose to dismiss the appeal.
That we do declare the public meeting closed and the regular meeting reconvened. Carried

Questions of Staff
3.2.1 – In response to Councillor McCann’s inquiry regarding measures being taken to deal with poison ivy in the Greenwood Subdivision, Director of Public Work Mike Kearns reported that a resident there brought it to the Public Works’ attention, and as it is a noxious weed and must be removed, a pesticide will be used to eradicate it since mechanical removal of the entire root structure is more difficult.

3.2.2 – In response to Councillor Borneman’s inquiries regarding boulevard maintenance, Salt Dock repairs, and Champaigne Street boat launch expansion, Mr. Kearns noted the following: It has been difficult keeping up with turf management as the Department has had a hard time filling student and/or casual positions and he encouraged anyone looking for summer work in particular, to make application to the Town.
With respect to the boat ramp at the Salt Docks Mr. Kearns reported that the pre-cast concrete slab ordered should be delivered late this week and as soon as it is installed, the boat launch can be reopened.
With respect to expanding the Champaigne St boat launch parking lot, Mr. Kearns reported that he is not sure how much land is available, or the condition of the land adjacent to the water, however it is something that can be looked at.

3.2.3 – In response to Councillor Backman’s inquiry regarding the status of school zone signage installation on Parry Sound Driver per request of the Parry Sound Forest School, Mr. Kearns reported that an appropriate location is being sought in consultation with the School, and the signage should be installed soon.

3.2.4 – In response to Councillor Backman’s inquiry regarding the skateboard park, and the water fountain installation at Waubuno Beach, Manager of Parks & Recreation April McNamara reported that with respect to the skateboard park, there are plans in place to paint when there are good weather days. With respect to the water fountain, Ms. McNamara reported that it is installed, however they are awaiting a part before activating.

3.2.5 – In response to Councillor Keith’s inquiry regarding the placement of the accessible mobi-mat at Waubuno Beach, as well whether dogs are permitted to swim at the public beaches, Ms. McNamara confirmed that the mobi-mat is installed, and lifeguards are on duty. With respect to pets, Ms. McNamara confirmed that public health directives prohibit pets from swimming at public beaches designated for people due to the risk of E.coli, and bacterial infections. Instead Ms. McNamara encouraged people to take their pets to the rugged trail past the Salt Docks. Ms. McNamara also confirmed that additional signage could be installed at the Beach identifying the prohibition on pets swimming there.

3.2.6 – In response to Councillor McCann’s inquiry regarding access to Tower Hill Lookout Tower, Ms. McNamara reported that she has consulted with COVID Public Health line, who have advised that the Tower cannot yet be opened as there is no way to ensure physical distancing. Once physical distancing and masking is no longer necessary, the Tower can be opened.

Correspondence
4.1 – Christy Cafovski, Executive Director, Parry Sound Area Chamber of Commerce.

Letter of appreciation for grant of $5,000 – Filed.

4.2 – Petition from Parry Sound residents and taxpayers.
Request Town refuse the demand of a bridge over Rotary Fitness Trail – Filed

Deputations
None

Resolutions and Direction to Staff
9.2.1 – Absolutely Georgian Bay – Request for Financial Assistance.
Direction to Staff Approved
That staff include the funding request from Absolutely Georgian Bay under the 2021 Municipal Assistance Program.
Carried

9.2.2 – Ad hoc Waterfront Advisory Committee Terms of Reference.
Resolution withdrawn
Whereas the Town is in the heart of the Georgian Bay Biosphere which is a region of global ecological significance that has an ongoing commitment to the United Nations and sustainability; and
Whereas environmental stewardship is a strategic priority for the Town; and
Whereas access to and the use of the waterfront is integral to the Town’s identity; and
Whereas the Town has a diverse and active waterfront user and business community; and
Whereas the Town wishes to enhance the waterfront as a people gathering place;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT an Ad hoc Waterfront Advisory Committee be approved per Terms of Reference attached as Schedule A.
With the consent of Council, mover and seconder Councillors Keith and Horne respectively withdrew the motion.
Direction for Staff Follow-up
That Staff be directed to research whether funds are available to put out to RFP to update the Waterfront Development Plan.
Carried

9.2.3 – Funding Application under the Canada Community Revitalization Fund
Resolution
That Council directs staff to submit an application under the Canada Community Revitalization Fund in an amount not to exceed $200,000 to revitalize the Rotary & Algonquin Regiment Fitness Trail.
Carried

9.3.1 – Ontario Regulation 284/09 – Excluded Expenses from the 2021 Budget. Resolution
That Council hereby adopts the compliance report for expenses excluded from the 2021 budget outlined in the staff Report and Recommendation “Ontario Regulation 284/09”, attached as Schedule “A”, as a requirement of Ontario Regulation 284/09 passed under the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25
Carried

9.4.1 – RFP award: Supply and Delivery of Animal Proof Combination Waste/Recycling Receptacles for Parks & Open Spaces.
Resolution
That Council accept the proposal from Busch Systems International Inc., for the supply and delivery of fifteen animal proof combination waste/recycling receptacles for the Parks Department in the amount of $23,646.75, plus, HST for 2021, $25,956.80, plus HST for 2022 for a total two-year project cost of $56,052.01, this proposal being lowest of three proposals received.
Carried

9.4.2 – Wastewater: Upgrade Gas Detection and Replace Sewer Camera and Locator.
Resolution

That Council authorize the upgrade of the gas detection in the inlet works, relocate the sensors and bring up to code at a cost not to exceed $25,000; and
That Council authorize the replacement of the existing sewer camera and locator at a cost not to exceed $20,000; and
That the projects be funded through the Wastewater Stabilization Reserve.
Carried

9.5.1 – Public Health Funding.
Resolution

Whereas, the Government of Ontario in its budget of April 11, 2019, initiated a Public Health Modernization process which included a change in municipal cost-sharing from 25% of mandatory public health programs covered by municipalities to 30% of almost all public health programs based on 2018 third quarter spending levels; and
Whereas, on August 21, 2020, the Ministry of Health (Ministry) announced that provincial mitigation funding would be provided to offset the increase to municipal cost- sharing for 2020 and 2021; and
Whereas the COVID-19 pandemic, which started in early 2020, has further affected municipalities’ ability to pay levy increases, has stalled modernization processes, increased the cost-of-living, and affected the health and well-being of the public, and more specifically, public health clients and staff;
Therefore, be it Resolved, that the Town of Parry Sound supports the North Bay Parry Sound District Health Units call per letter and resolution attached, to return to the 2018 cost-sharing formulas at 25% – 75%, with 100% provincially funded program; and
Furthermore, be it Resolved that the Town of Parry Sound supports mitigation funding continue for 2022 to eliminate the additional financial burden of a 42-50% levy increase to the 31 member municipalities of the North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit, if it is not possible to return to the 2018 cost-sharing formula with 100% provincially funded programs; and
Furthermore, be it Resolved, that the Town of Parry Sound requests the 2022 public health funding include increases to reflect cost-of-living increases, public health program changes related to ongoing COVID-19 response, and funding to assist with program and community recovery efforts; and
Furthermore, be it Resolved, that the Town of Parry Sound requests a base funding increase to fund an Associate Medical Officer of Health to support the Medical Officer of Health with the continual demands of 24/7 on call coverage that have been highlighted throughout the COVID-19 pandemic; and
Furthermore, be it Resolved, that the Town of Parry Sound sends a copy of this resolution to the Minister of Health, MPP Norm Miller, North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit, and member municipalities within the said Health Unit.
Carried

9.5.2. – Requesting new Accommodation Review Committee for Proposed School.
Resolution

WHEREAS our schools are a vital part of the educational, social and economic development that is integral to the West Parry Sound area municipalities;
AND WHEREAS an Accommodation Review Committee (ARC) was established in 2013 to review Nobel and McDougall elementary schools;
AND WHEREAS the Near North District School Board (NNDSB) included the Parry Sound High School (PSHS) within the same ARC as Nobel and McDougall elementary schools;
AND WHEREAS in 2018 the Ministry of Education put a moratorium on the closing of any schools in the Province of Ontario;
AND WHEREAS after the moratorium by the Province, and based on an outdated ARC, the NNDSB has announced the closure of Nobel and McDougall elementary schools for a junior kindergarten to grade 12 mega school at the location of the PSHS;
AND WHEREAS the preliminary design plans for a new mega-school does not reflect the growth for the West Parry Sound area over the past 8 years;
AND WHEREAS the ratepayers of West Parry Sound contribute over $15 million dollars annually towards local education;
AND WHEREAS the NNDSB has not communicated adequately with the municipal governments and residents in which the schools are located;
AND WHEREAS the elementary students and their parents from the West Parry Sound area deserve to have their voices heard in respect to the location and design of a new mega school;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Parry Sound requests that the Near North District School Board convene a new Accommodation Review Committee for the junior kindergarten to grade 12 mega school;
AND FURTHER THAT an independent study of enrollment and population figures be completed prior to the finalization of the JK-12 mega school;
AND FURTHER THAT this resolution be forwarded to the West Parry Sound Municipalities, Shawanaga First Nation, Wasauksing First Nation, Henvey Inlet First Nation, Magnetawan First Nation, Moose Deer Point First Nation, Near North District School Board Trustee John Cochrane, the Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, the Honourable Stephen Lecce, Minister of Education, Parry Sound-Muskoka MP Scott Aitchison, and Parry Sound-Muskoka MPP Norm Miller.
Carried

9.5.3 National Forest Week.
Resolution

WHEREAS forests cover 66% of the province and 71.1 million hectares, and are an indispensable source of ecological, cultural, health, social and economic benefit,
WHEREAS Ontario’s forests are also located on the traditional territory of diverse Indigenous nations and provide nourishment and cultural value to these groups,
WHEREAS Parry Sound’s forested greenspaces offer valuable recreational opportunities for its residents and visitors,
WHEREAS Parry Sound’s urban forests are not only a center for physical, mental and social wellbeing but also a contributor of essential ecological services for the town such as pollution reduction, stormwater retention, cooling and wildlife habitat,
WHEREAS: National Forest Week with the theme this year of “Our Forests – Continually Giving”, is an annual one-week campaign which recognizes the critical contribution of forests to Canada and its people,
THEREFORE the Council of the Town of Parry Sound declares September 19–25, 2021 as: “NATIONAL FOREST WEEK” in Parry Sound.
Carried

9.5.4 – National Rail Safety Week.
Resolution

Whereas Rail Safety Week is to be held across Canada from September 20 to 26, 2021;
Whereas it is in the public’s interest to raise citizens’ awareness of the dangers of ignoring safety warnings at level crossings and trespassing on rail property to reduce avoidable deaths, injuries and damage caused by incidents involving trains and citizens;
Whereas Operation Lifesaver is a public/private partnership whose aim is to work with the public, rail industry, governments, police services, media and others to raise rail safety awareness;
Whereas CN has requested Town Council adopt this resolution in support of its ongoing efforts to raise awareness, save lives and prevent injuries in communities, including our municipality;
Now Therefore it is hereby RESOLVED to support national Rail Safety Week to be held from September 20 to 26, 2021.
Carried

By-laws
10.1.1 – New Parks By-law for the Town of Parry Sound.

By-law 2021 – 7145
Being a by-law to regulate the use of Public Parks.
Passed, Signed & Sealed.

10.1.2 – Salt Dock Inspection.
By-law 2021 – 7146
Being a By-law to authorize a transfer from the Smelter Wharf Reserve Fund for an inspection of the Smelter Wharf.
Passed, Signed & Sealed.

10.1.3 Zoning By-law Amendment – William Street (Robert L Tudhope LK&K Inv Ltd.).
By-Law 2021 – 7148
Being a By-law to amend By-law No. 2004-4653 (The Zoning By-law), as amended, for Z/21/03 – William Street (Robert L Tudhope LK&K Inv Ltd.).
Passed, Signed & Sealed.

10.3.1 – Asset Management Plan Progress and Strategic Asset Management Policy Update.
By-law 2021 – 7147
Being a By-law to approve an updated Strategic Asset Management Policy for the Corporation of the Town of Parry Sound.
Passed, Signed & Sealed.
Resolution
Be it resolved that Council accepts the Asset Management Plan update in accordance with the Town’s Strategic Asset Management Policy and O. Reg. 588/17: Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure under the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015.
Carried

10.5.1 – Return Management of Belvedere Long-Term Beds to MLTC for Campus of Care.
By-law 2021-7150
Being a By-law to return management of 101 Long-Term Care Beds to the Ministry of Long-Term Care to be relocated into a Campus of Care at West Parry Sound Health Centre.
Read a First Time, this 6th day of July, 2021.
Council voted in favour of postponing the second and third readings to the July 20, 2021 meeting.